I include first Mike’s letter and then my response. As with my response to Eliza Wood's article in the Huffington Post, these comments are my personal thoughts. For official answers to questions about Mormon doctrines, please consider consulting some of the following websites:

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/

http://mormon.org/

http://www.lds.org/?lang=eng

MIKE’S COMMENTS AND QUESTION(S)

Very thorough research, Kurt, and made more readable by
your respectful tone throughout-- even in the face of an article by Ms. Wood
that goes beyond ignorance and borders on insulting. You have probably read the response by Dr. Peterson. I know he's a professor, but your analysis stands up
well next to his.

My question, as a non-Mormon, is whether you or Dr. Peterson are capable of
getting past the factual inaccuracies of this woman's piece and asking whether
she is giving voice to an honest concern that many of her readers have, however
inartfully she went about it?

The simple truth is that many, many Americans view the members of your faith as
somehow alien and not to be trusted. Scolding a reporter for poor fact-checking
is unlikely to dissuade them.

Here's a true story: my friend travelled to attend her college roommate's (LDS)
wedding last year. Her only familiarity with Latter-day Saints was that, in her
mind, they were the reason her sister had had to cancel her own wedding in
2008, because Mormons had spearheaded a ballot measure (Prop 8) that made the
marriage illegal.

My friend returned with reports that she and about half the other guests had
been banned from the church and could not even see the marriage ceremony. I
tried to explain that it wasn't a church but a temple, that it was called a
sealing and that sealings are considered private for very specific reasons. My
friend did not care about those facts. All she took away from the incident was
that these were a weird bunch of secretive cultists who wouldn't even let the
bride's own mother attend her wedding. In other words, she already harbored a
prejudice and her experience merely reinforced it.

You have already succeeded in showing that the Huffington Post reporter did
shoddy work and have coherently and respectfully countered her errors one by
one. My question is whether you have heard what she was saying in the first
place. Mormons and Muslims are seen as "other" by many, many
Americans who honestly question whether members of these faiths would strive to
subvert our principles of religious freedom if their leaders ordered them to do
so.

Many Americans would like to know, as would I, if there is any real difference
between a Muslim in Afghanistan who would beat a woman to force her to wear a
hijab, and a Mormon in America who would pay money for a new law that forces
other citizens and other churches to obey LDS marriage doctrine.

Despite all the facts you've offered in your blog post, I see nothing there
that allows me to answer this very basic question.

MY COMMENTS TO MIKE

Hi Mike,

Thanks for your question. I have a few thoughts that
might give you some insight from my perspective as a Mormon….

First, the purpose behind my response was to provide
readers with a sense of what Mormons believe. I focused the response on those
issues raised by Eliza Wood in her article. As you've seen, some of her points
were accurate, but many were seriously flawed - yet portrayed as matter-of-fact
truths.

Second, the purpose wasn't necessarily to dissuade Wood
of her beliefs, but rather encourage accurate reporting. When it comes to my
religious beliefs, I am an advocate of teaching others what I believe and then letting
them choose for themselves what they believe. That becomes increasingly more
difficult when things I don't believe in - sometimes even things I find
offensive - are represented as mainstream Mormon beliefs. As far as Wood is
concerned, my response focused on her responsibilities as a journalist to
accurately portray facts rather than trying to dissuade her from her
conclusions.

Third, I think Wood's article lacked a sense of
cohesiveness that enables all of her readers to come away with the same understanding
of what her purposes or conclusions were. You suggest her main
point may have been to say that Mormons and Muslims are viewed by others with
suspicion. This isn't something that I came away thinking, although I admit I may have
been blinded by my concern with her misrepresentations to the degree that I
couldn't pick up on more subtle or inherent points she may have been trying to convey.

For these reasons, I didn't address the issue you bring up - but I would be happy to try and speak to your question here.

MORMONS AND POLITICS

You ask, "Is there any real difference between a
Muslim in Afghanistan who would beat a woman to force her to wear a hijab, and
a Mormon in America who would pay money for a new law that forces other
citizens and other churches to obey LDS marriage doctrine?"

I would answers, "Yes, there is a big
difference."

If there is any word from your scenario that stuck out
the most, it is "force." One of the most important principles of our
religion is that of agency, or allowing others the freedom to choose. We live
by many sets of laws, both those set by legislators and those we believe are
set by God.

Marriage is a unique situation where secular and
spiritual laws seem to be converging. Throughout history, marriage has enjoyed
the benefit of not being tugged in one direction by religion and tugged in the
other direction by secularism and other religions that don't view gay marriage
to be immoral. That no longer seems to be the case.

So how does our view of agency mesh, for instance, with
financial support offered by some members of the church to advocate against laws
supporting gay marriage?

I would say that the fact we believe in agency doesn't
mean that we must refrain from trying to influence others. In fact, we have
scriptures that encourage us to exercise our influence - but to do so in a
righteous manner. I don't view a financial donation in support of or in
opposition to gay marriage as any more inappropriate than financial support in
support of or in opposition to financial regulations, health care reform, etc.

And what about the church as an institution?

When it comes to politics, the church is neutral, as its
"mission is to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ, not to elect
politicians." Yet there are times when the church does get involved -
although this rare involvement is issue-based and does not involve the support
of a party or a candidate.

A statement from the church explains, "[The Church reserves] the right as an institution to address,
in a nonpartisan way, issues that it believes have significant community or
moral consequences or that directly affect the interests of the Church."

As it relates to gay marriage, the church believes this is an issue that meets those criteria. Nevertheless, while the church and some
of its members may try to influence policy outcomes that align with our moral
beliefs, we nonetheless abide by laws which are passed even if we disagree with
them.

I think you would agree that any of us would be amiss if we sat on
the sidelines of an important issue while the outcome was determined. In fact, I fully support the
rights of those who favor gay rights to make their voices heard as policy and
legislation is debated and created. This freedom of speech is an important part
of our country's heritage (though I might add that I am saddened by the
dramatic decline of civility we see everywhere from the halls of Congress to
the airwaves to comment boards on internet blogs).

Now, having addressed the issue from the standpoint of
Mormons in general and the church as an institution, what if a member of
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was elected president of the
United States? What would keep him from forcing his beliefs on others?

There are several issues at play here.

First, there is
the principle of agency I addressed earlier and the principles taught in our
scriptures about exerting influence. A Mormon president may try to influence
policy so that it corresponds with his moral or religious beliefs, but he would
not force it upon others.

Second, even if a Mormon president broke one tenet of his
religion (e.g., defending the agency of others) to support another (e.g.,
defending marriage as being between one man and one woman), our government with
its system of checks and balances is designed to prevent just such a
power-play.

In order for a Mormon president to set aside some of the most important principles of our religion in order to successfully influence policy
regarding gay marriage in such a way that would compare with a "Muslim in
Afghanistan who would beat a woman to force her to wear a hijab," Mormons
would also need to control both houses of Congress as well as have a majority
on the Supreme Court to ensure the creation and sustenance of the legislation. However, even if Mormons ever gained such unprecedented control over all three
branches of government, if you've ever been to a Mormon Sunday School class
(part of our 3-hour worship services each Sunday), you learn pretty quickly
that we aren't a group of people who are like-minded on every issue.

Of those
Mormons who are politically active on a national level, consider the cases of
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV). Both are Mormons, yet their
perspectives on numerous issues are incredibly diverse. So, if a Mormon is ever
elected to the White House and decided to forget about his sacred belief in
agency, our government with its checks and balances together with the human
propensity for disagreement makes it night-unto-impossible that he could ever
force his beliefs of any kind, let alone marriage, upon the American people.

I might add, however, that this argument doesn't mean
that a Mormon president would be completely without ability to influence. For
example, before becoming the prophet of our church, Ezra Taft Benson(1899-1994) was Secretary of Agriculture in the Eisenhower administration. One
of the things I remember from his biography by Sheri Dew is that he influenced
President Eisenhower to begin his cabinet meetings with prayer.

There are some who
would think that is a wonderful thing and others who think it is terrible. The
point is that you would probably see the beliefs and morals of a Mormon
president have some impact on the country. Although as a matter of intellectual
honesty, I think I would have to say that we probably see this with every
president. The key difference in this case is that the president would be not
just a Mormon, but the first Mormon president. My personal feeling is that if a
Mormon is elected president, there would be some buzz on the airwaves in the
initial period after his inauguration, but that it would quickly return to politics as usual as
he began to deal with the issues of the day. Criticism of the president would centered on his stances toward foreign policy, economics, appointment nominees, etc., rather than his religious beliefs.

Third (and lastly for this lengthy post), if we are
using Mitt Romney as the case study, he has already pledged to do what he thinks is
best if elected and not follow some kind of directive from the prophet.

In a
speech much like the one given by John F. Kennedy explaining the Vatican would
not dictate his actions in office, Romney stated in 2007:

"Let me assure you that no authorities of my church,
or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on
presidential decisions. Their authority is theirs, within the province of
church affairs, and it ends where the affairs of the nation begin.

“As governor, I tried to do the right as best I knew it,
serving the law and answering to the Constitution. I did not confuse the
particular teachings of my church with the obligations of the office and of the
Constitution – and of course, I would not do so as president. I will put no
doctrine of any church above the plain duties of the office and the sovereign
authority of the law."

Mike, I hope these comments have answered your question
somewhat and provided you with a greater understanding of how our beliefs
relate to politics. I appreciate your kind words and your sincere question -
and I apologize that your friend had such a terrible experience in conjunction
with the wedding of her Mormon friend. If the tables were turned, I would have
had a hard time coming away from that experience not feeling as she had. I wish someone had been there to help better explain.

Her story reminded me of a scene from a movie, "One Good Man,." It tells the story of a Mormon who is called
to be a Bishop (the leader of a local congregation). There's a poignant scene
in it that deals with just the kind of situation your friend talked about. I've
included a link below. There's a trailer to give you a taste, but based on your
questions, I think you might find the movie not only enjoyable, but also
somewhat enlightening. It's not an official church production, so take it with
as many grains as salt as you do my comments, but it's probably the best
true-to-life Mormon story I've seen set to film yet.

If I can be of any help answering questions, just let me
know. If you want to email me (see the profile section of the blog), I'd also
be happy to give you my personal email address.

Saturday, July 28, 2012

This post is meant to serve as a response to a recent
article published through the Huffington Post by Eliza Wood, entitled, “Are Mormons Closer to Muslims or Christians?”
While I am a Mormon, the views expressed here are my own and represent my
personal understanding of various doctrines alluded to in Wood’s article

To begin, I am not familiar with Ms. Wood, so I don’t
know if the vast number of inaccuracies in this article represents a lapse of
journalistic integrity or if Wood has hard feelings toward the Mormon faith. Regardless
of the motive or catalyst behind Wood’s article, I think it is important to
address some of her false claims regarding Mormon beliefs.

First, I respectfully suggest Wood’s assertion that
Mormons are not Christian is false, especially when considered in this
particular context where there is liberal use of inaccuracies regarding Mormon
beliefs.

Second, I suggest that Wood failed in her attempt to warn
voters about Mormon candidates. She appeared to believe Mormon candidates would
try to ‘pull a snow job’ to cloud their personal character and manipulate votes.
Rather than breaking down issues to educate her readers, Wood presents her
readers over and over again with false statements surrounding Mormon beliefs.
Ironically, I think Wood clouds the issues even further through her constant
use of misinformation.

For the most part, this posting will address various
statements made by Wood and either confirm a statement is correct or explain why
a statement asserted as truth is not true.

While I find it disappointing to see a journalist twist
the beliefs of my faith, the purpose of this response is not to attack Wood,
but rather to respectfully and professionally explain the difference between her
assertions and my understanding — as a Mormon — of the Mormon doctrines she
distorts.

I believe I understand what she tried to demonstrate in
this article and hope she will consult the numerous resources made available to journalists and rewrite her piece using factual assertions. While we would
likely still disagree, a refashioned article would enable Wood to present her
points of view in a professional manner where her conclusions stem from an
analysis of truth. At a time when disagreements about matters of politics and
religion are becoming increasingly uncivil, Wood can make a statement to her readers
and the Huffington Post by producing a modified article that disagrees without
being dishonest or disagreeable. Her points can be sharpened and produced in a
more professional, honest, and civil manner.

Evaluation of Wood's assertions

“As the media
shapes our understanding of the Mormon faith, now that we Americans consider
electing our first Mormon presidential candidate (Mitt Romney), it might be
wise for us to better understand the similarities and differences among
Christianity and these two faiths.”

The best place to learn about a religion is not from the
media, but from representatives of the religion itself. It is perfectly
acceptable for the media to cover religion, but they have at least a twofold
duty to (1) accurately present facts and (2) not to twist facts out of context.

Unfortunately, in this piece, Wood fails to meet
either of these criteria for the Mormon faith, lslam, or the umbrella of
Christianity which encompasses numerous denominations.

* * * * * * *

“[Mormons] had
prophets after Jesus that they believe to be more authentic and current than
Jesus.”

We believe in living prophets. I think this is the issue Wood is trying to get at, but I’m not completely sure. Her use of the adjective
“authentic” is ambiguous and confusing, whereas referring to a “current” prophet
fails to explain why a prophet living today is any more important than prophets
called by Christ before His birth or those called after His resurrection — let alone
the Savior Himself.

We believe the Savior of the World to be far more than a
prophet, but the actual Son of God. The reality of living prophets who teach us
of God’s will does nothing to decrease the stature of the Savior, but rather
teaches us how to more fully worship Him. We revere prophets living today, just
as those living in the days of Abraham or Moses looked to those men as
prophets. But we do not worship them.

Is Wood suggesting Mormons worship prophets or view
them as somehow more important than the Savior? If so, her mind can be set at
ease in this particular matter as such is not the case. If not, Wood does not
state clearly to what else she might be referring.

* * * * * * *

“Mormonism teaches
that a line of prophets extended from Joseph Smith all the way to the present
with Thomas S. Monson, who is currently considered their prophet.”

“While in some
ways neither Islam nor Mormonism is very much like Christianity, the two faiths
actually have a lot of similarities.”

What are these ways? I think Wood is attempting to define
Christianity and then compare Mormons and Muslims to her definition, except no definition
for a comparison is given in this regard.

Because Wood does not put forth a definition of
Christianity, her claim that “in some ways neither Islam nor Mormonism is very
much like Christianity” requires more clarification.

Personally, I think it is inappropriate for me to judge
whether anyone is a Christian, and conversely, for anyone to judge whether I am
a Christian. To me, this is a very personal and intimate matter best determined
between an individual and God. However, notwithstanding the personal nature of our relationships with God, we recognize a great deal of meaning is associated with and conveyed by the label of "Christian." As such, we proclaim that Mormons are Christian.

By any number of standards, I consider myself as a Mormon
to be a Christian. I believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God. I believe that He
suffered for my sins so that through repentance I can obtain His grace and live
in His presence in the world to come. I believe Jesus Christ died for all
mankind that we can be resurrected, having bodies and spirits that will never
again be separated.

* * * * * * *

“[Mormons]
consider the family unit as the foundation for religious life.”

This is true. The first paragraph of “The Family: AProclamation to the World,” states, “We… solemnly proclaim that marriage
between a man and woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to
the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children.”

* * * * * * *

“[Mormons] have an
insistence that religion is their complete way of life.”

I am not entirely sure what Wood means by this statement.
The word “insistence” suggests an overt action or teaching, “religion” suggests
a denomination is the vehicle, but “complete way of life” confuses me as to precisely what it means.

What I can say is that we seek to live so that the teachings of the
gospel of Jesus Christ govern everything we do. We seek
to emulate the Savior and to keep His commandments. As we do so, we experience
a joy that permeates so deeply we desire and seek to share it with others. We
seek to pray always, as counseled by the Savior, and try to be examples of the
believers in our families, in our employment, in our schooling, in our
recreation — in every aspect of our lives.

* * * * * * *

“[Mormonism
requires] fasting and ritual cleansings.”

This is true. On the first Sunday of each month, we fast
for two meals and donate the cost of the skipped meals to care for the poor and needy. The
reasons for our fasts vary, though a general theme of coming closer to God is
probably associated in one way or another with all of our fasts. We view
fasting both as a commandment and an opportunity.

Elder Joseph B. Wirthlin, one of the Savior's Apostles (now deceased), taught, “Fasting, coupled with
mighty prayer, is powerful. It can fill our minds with the revelations of the
Spirit. It can strengthen us against times of temptation.” It is a way for us
to come closer to God.

* * * * * * *

“[Mormons] believe
theirs is the original religion of Adam.”

This is true. We believe that all mankind belong to the
family of God and descend from Adam and Eve. We believe we lived before we were born and that we will yet live after death. The state of our eternal nature,
however, is dependent upon the degree to which we partake of the Savior’s
atonement and keep covenants designed to enable our return to a heavenly home.

We believe the gospel of Jesus Christ was given to Adam
for this purpose, that it was taught by the Savior upon His mortal arrival, that
it has been restored again in our times through the prophet Joseph Smith, and
that it is taught today by a living prophet, Thomas S. Monson.

While the church no longer practices polygamy, there was
a period in our history where polygamy was lived by some members of the church,
though there was no specific number of wives (e.g., “four”) associated with the
practice. Those who participate in polygamous relationships today are excommunicated.

We love all people and believe engaging in homosexual or bisexual acts is a
moral sin. From a personal standpoint, I also refrain from referring to individuals with homosexual tendencies as "homosexual" because I think it is debasing and insulting to assume an individual wants to be identified first and foremost by their sexual orientations. For example, I would hope that I live in such a way as to be identified by those labels most important to me, such as a father, a disciple of Christ, a true friend, etc. This is also the case with all of my friends who have sexual orientations that are not heterosexual, although I recognize that not everybody may feel this way.

People inquire about our position on those who consider
themselves so-called gays and lesbians. My response is that we love them as
sons and daughters of God. They may have certain inclinations which are
powerful and which may be difficult to control. Most people have inclinations
of one kind or another at various times. If they do not act upon these
inclinations, then they can go forward as do all other members of the Church.
If they violate the law of chastity and the moral standards of the Church, then
they are subject to the discipline of the Church, just as others are.

We want to help these people, to strengthen them, to
assist them with their problems and to help them with their difficulties. But
we cannot stand idle if they indulge in immoral activity, if they try to uphold
and defend and live in a so-called same-sex marriage situation. To permit such
would be to make light of the very serious and sacred foundation of
God-sanctioned marriage and its very purpose, the rearing of families.

* * * * * * *

“This may be
alarming to some, but both Islam and Mormonism teach that marriage can extend
into the afterlife.”

Far from being alarming, the knowledge that family relationships can
continue beyond the veil of death is one of our most joyous doctrines.

However, for those in bad marriages, the thought of an
eternal marriage could very well be alarming. That is one reason we place so
much emphasis on the family – so that husbands and wives can sacrifice for each
other in the course of righteous living.

Elder F. Burton Howard has taught, “If
you want something to last forever, you treat it differently…. It becomes
special because you have made it so.” For those who shudder at the thought of sharing eternity together as husband and wife, the gospel of Jesus Christ provides the power to eradicate feelings of alarm and replace them with feelings of joyous fulfillment and anticipation.

Aside from the reality of the atonement of Jesus Christ, few doctrines provide us with more joy than the related knowledge that marriage does not have to last only 'until death do ye part.'

* * * * * * *

“Oddly enough, [Mormons]
had a split after their prophet's death with one side believing that the faith
should continue though the prophet's descendents [sp] and the other side rejecting
that…. For Mormons, this caused the divide between the Later Day Saints, which
make up about 99 percent of Mormons, and others.”

This statement is partially true.

After the prophet Joseph Smith was martyred, certain individuals jockeyed for positions of power, although the prophet’s children were too
young for leadership roles at the time. It is at this time in our Church’s
history that Brigham Young and other apostles taught that authority to lead God’s
people came from God in the form of priesthood. In this case, Young stated that
once Joseph died, the authority to lead the church was collectively held by the
Twelve Apostles. The majority of the membership accepted Young’s teachings and
soon left for the deserts of Utah when they were forced to leave Nauvoo,
Illinois.

The term “Mormon” is a nickname for the full name of our
church, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The name of the church
teaches that it is Christ’s church, comprised of those who live in the
latter-days. I am assuming Wood simply had a typo in her text when speaking of “Later
Day Saints”. However, if the text as posted on her blog is accurate in
reference to the name of our church, it is worrisome, for if one cannot
accurately portray the name of a church, the accuracy of the author’s portrayal
of the religion’s doctrines is also likely to be lacking. Indeed, such is the
case with a great deal of Wood’s claims.

* * * * * * *

“Joseph Smith [was]
taunted for [his[ work and driven out by locals…. Joseph Smith had to move from
Illinois to Missouri…. Joseph Smith established [his] own city-[state], with… Joseph
Smith ruling Nauvoo, Ill.”

While persecution is not enjoyable, the Savior
nonetheless teaches us that it is a blessing to be persecuted for Him, because
that has been the reward of His prophets and followers throughout the ages. In
the case of Joseph Smith, he was persecuted from his early teens in New York as
he spoke of a vision of God, translated another testament of Jesus Christ to go hand-in-hand with the bible, and taught truths of God long-forgotten and often
adulterated. Our pioneer ancestors were drive from state to state to state
because of the persecution of others.

“This one thing is sure, that they who will live godly in
Christ Jesus, shall suffer persecution; and before their robes are made white
in the blood of the Lamb, it is to be expected, according to John the
Revelator, they will pass through great tribulation.”

As to Joseph Smith’s status in Nauvoo, Wood's comments that he ruled over a city-state are misleading. Nauvoo was built from
the swampy ground up by the Mormons and was a legally chartered city of
Illinois. While Joseph Smith maintained a great degree of influence, it was in
Nauvoo that he answered a question posed to him about what power he used to
govern his people.

He (tellingly) replied, “I do not govern them, I teach
them correct principles and they govern themselves.” Joseph taught that we
should lead as God leads, through the exertion of love while concurrently respect
the agency of others to follow or not.

* * * * * * *

“[Mormons] have
Scripture that can justify violence and murder, as does the Bible. While
Mormons have not acted violently in the U.S. for quite some time, there was an
incident back in 1857 called the Mountain Meadows Massacre, which happened on
Sept. 11. The massacre was led by prominent Mormon leader John D. Lee, who was
trying to exact revenge on some emigrants but when the emigrants surrendered,
the militia killed men, women and children in cold blood, and then tried to
cover it up.”

The Mountain Meadows Massacre is a tragic stain on the
history of our church. There is no possible excuse for the leadership and
participation of Mormons in the murder of emigrants traveling through Utah from
(mostly) Arkansas on their way to California. It was a deed performed in cold
blood, though Wood inaccurately states the tragedy was the result of “trying to
exact revenge” and uses an exaggerated adjective in describing John D. Lee as a
“prominent Mormon leader.” Lee was a prominent religious leader in his local
community, but his authority fell far outside of the central hierarchy of the church
(Brigham Young was the prophet at the time of the massacre, but did not
instigate the massacre).

It should be noted here that various details associated
with the massacre are debated. As stated previously, what cannot be debated is
that the deed was inexcusable and evil. The latest scholarship on the topic is Massacre at Mountain Meadows by three
historians who had unprecedented access to documents surrounding the events.

A
portion of the review from the Oxford Press states, “The Mountain Meadows
Massacre stands as one of the darkest events in Mormon history. Neither a
whitewash nor an exposé, Massacre at Mountain Meadows provides the clearest and most
accurate account of a key event in American religious history.”

* * * * * * *

“We don't need to
be experts on either religion to see these similarities.”

As it relates to the purposes of Wood’s article, it would
have been especially prudent to have consulted “experts” who could have helped
her distinguish fact from fiction. In this particular article, Wood fails to
characterize the nuanced Christianity to which she constantly refers. At the
same time, she falsely portrays very significant doctrines of the Mormon faith.It is not necessary to confer with experts to understand the basic tenets of various religions, but that does not excuse journalists from the responsibility to fact-check their assertions before going to press.

Wood could have disabused herself from her false understanding of Mormons and Muslims with a small amount of research from Mormons and Muslims. Her failure in this regard is a serious breach of journalistic ethics.

It can be both appropriate and acceptable to write opinion pieces that explain why one disagrees with the tenets of a particular religion. However, it is a serious breach of integrity to do so while falsely portraying the religion in question.

I think every journalist has made mistakes at one time or another. When those mistakes are made, the proper course of action is to publish a correction or retraction. What makes Wood's failures especially grievous is both the number of mistakes and the fact that she is writing not about tangential beliefs, but rather doctrines central to the understanding of Mormons and Muslims. In other words, her article doesn't contain one small error, but exceedingly numerous and serious errors.

My understanding of the Islamic faith leads me to believe
she mischaracterizes Muslim beliefs as well. A scholar of Islam at BYU
identifies several inaccuracies in Wood’s article from the Islamic perspective in
this blog posting at Patheos.com.

* * * * * * *

“They both have
common ground with Christianity, and much of it. But both Islam and Mormonism
are at best very distant cousins of Christianity with some of the same
overarching guidance.”

Again, Mormons consider ourselves to be Christian,
whereas Muslims make no such assertion. To identify common ground or differences in supporting
her thesis, Wood needed to describe her nuanced definition of Christianity. Her
failure to do so leaves the door open to claim that any sect is Christian or
not Christian.

I wrote earlier that we consider ourselves as Mormons to
be Christian — and also that I personally feel the label of “Christian” is intimately
personal and best determined between each individual and God. However, there
are certain doctrines of our faith which set us apart from some traditional
Christian doctrines. For example, I have written previously that we believe the
Godhead is comprised of three individuals united in purpose, but separate in
person, whereas traditional Christianity worships a trinity in which the
Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one not merely in purpose, but also in
person.

Another doctrine which sets us apart from traditional Christianity
is our belief in continuing revelation. From this belief stems the continuous
stream of living prophets to which Wood referred, as well as the Book of Mormon
— a book translated by Joseph Smith as another testament of Jesus Christ to be
used in conjunction with the Old and New Testaments.

In these areas we disagree with certain Christian traditions, but these claims in no way detract from our belief in Christ. Elder Jeffrey R. Holland has testified,

Now, to anyone within the sound of my voice who has wondered
regarding our Christianity, I bear this witness. I testify that Jesus
Christ is the literal, living Son of our literal, living God. This Jesus
is our Savior and Redeemer who, under the guidance of the Father, was
the Creator of heaven and earth and all things that in them are. I bear
witness that He was born of a virgin mother, that in His lifetime He
performed mighty miracles observed by legions of His disciples and by
His enemies as well. I testify that He had power over death because He
was divine but that He willingly subjected Himself to death for our sake
because for a period of time He was also mortal. I declare that in His
willing submission to death He took upon Himself the sins of the world,
paying an infinite price for every sorrow and sickness, every heartache
and unhappiness from Adam to the end of the world. In doing so He
conquered both the grave physically and hell spiritually and set the
human family free. I bear witness that He was literally resurrected from
the tomb and, after ascending to His Father to complete the process of
that Resurrection, He appeared, repeatedly, to hundreds of disciples in
the Old World and in the New. I know He is the Holy One of Israel, the
Messiah who will one day come again in final glory, to reign on earth as
Lord of lords and King of kings. I know that there is no other name
given under heaven whereby a man can be saved and that only by relying
wholly upon His merits, mercy, and everlasting grace can we gain eternal life.

My additional testimony regarding this resplendent doctrine is that
in preparation for His millennial latter-day reign, Jesus has already
come, more than once, in embodied majestic glory. In the spring of 1820,
a 14-year-old boy, confused by many of these very doctrines that still
confuse much of Christendom, went into a grove of trees to pray. In
answer to that earnest prayer offered at such a tender age, the Father
and the Son appeared as embodied, glorified beings to the boy prophet Joseph Smith. That day marked the beginning of the return of the true, New Testament gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and the restoration of other prophetic truths offered from Adam down to the present day.

I testify that my witness of these things is true and that the
heavens are open to all who seek the same confirmation. Through the Holy
Spirit of Truth, may we all know “the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom [He has] sent.” Then may we live Their teachings and be true Christians in deed, as well as in word, I pray in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

* * * * * * *

“If a Christian of
any denomination inadvertently walked into a Mormon tabernacle…, which would be
fairly difficult since both allow only members of their faith to enter, there
is no way the service could be recognized as a Christian devotion to Christ.”

I assume in making this assertion that Wood has not been
to a Mormon worship service and that by tabernacles, she means chapels — in which
Mormon and non-Mormon alike are welcome.

As individual members of The Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we desire, and are constantly admonished to
make Christ the center of our lives. We seek to do all that we do in the name
of the Savior, while yet recognizing we are subject to mortal weaknesses and
need the grace of Christ to truly speak and act as He would were He in our
places.

While varying definitions of Christianity may include or
exclude any number of religious denominations depending upon the criteria being
used, it would be very difficult to attend a Mormon worship service and fail to
recognize the central role of Christ in our worship — and in our daily lives
outside of church.

I disagree with Wood’s declaration. However, I would feel
more comfortable with her deductions if she first presented an accurate
depiction of our beliefs and then explained why she feels our worship of the
Savior differs from her understanding of what characterizes a Christian. In
this particular article, she fails to identify her form of Christianity
(presumably the tenets of a specific Christian denomination), while
concurrently misrepresenting why Mormons consider ourselves to be Christian and
why Muslims do not.

Wood has done a disservice in this article not only to
the religions discussed, but also to her readers. In decrying the need for
experts to explain Mormon and Muslim beliefs and admonishing her readers to “put
on [their] critical thinking cap[s]”, the author misleads her readers in a
failed attempt to prove her thesis.

While I am not completely sure of the point Wood is
trying to convey, I think I can safely say she is attempting to educate her
readers by comparing the beliefs of various religious communities. If such is
the case, Wood would have done well to have adopted Stendahl’s three rules of religious understanding, the first
principle of which states that in comparing one religion with another, you should
consult the believers of the faith in question and not their enemies.

Although I do not know if Wood obtained her understanding
of my faith from those who hold different beliefs and consider themselves
enemies of Mormonism, I can safely say she did not consult an ample supply of
resources our church makes available to those with questions — including journalists.
We do not ask that everyone agree with us, but do feel it is appropriate that our
beliefs should be accurately portrayed by the media.

I don’t know why Wood failed to research this topic
before writing her article, but I believe her failure has unnecessarily damaged
her reputation. I wrote earlier that her portrayal of our doctrines should be
approached with skepticism if the name of our church isn’t accurate. By the
same token, the sheer gravity and number of mistakes in this particular article shakes my
faith in the accuracy of future articles in which Wood may seek to educate me,
as a reader, about topics with which I may be unfamiliar. That is unfortunate.

Concluding thoughts

As a Mormon, I believe in Christ and consider myself to be a Christian. The Mormon doctrines of which Wood writes are completely unfamiliar to me as a Mormon, and in many cases, are factually incorrect.

This is such an unfortunate article. Politics and
religion invite disagreement and contention, but it’s not necessary. Whether
out of a temporary lapse of journalistic integrity or something more
consciously vindictive, Eliza Wood has published an article littered with
untruths that damages her reputation while misleading her readers about the
Muslim faith and the Mormon faith.

I hope Wood will rewrite her article. There is a world of
difference between laying out the facts and saying, “I see that differently
than you,” and what Wood did. It would be challenging to acknowledge such
severe shortcomings and do a rewrite, but it would also set an example of civil
discourse that could influence discussions elsewhere.

Tuesday, July 17, 2012

As the camps of Barack Obama and Mitt Romney recently took time off in the run-up to November’s election, Romney’s faith seems to
have missed the last available bus. And like so many times before, Romney’s
Mormon connection has found its way into the news cycle without going through
Romney or Obama to get there.

In fact, what makes the latest bit of news interesting is
that the comments came from House Speaker John Boehner (R-W.VA).

As compared to the rise and fall of nations, the history
of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in America is brief.

Mormons share a common heritage of belief in various
tenets of the Savior’s good news, ranging from a belief in God the Father, His
Son, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost, to the reality of contemporary prophets,
miracles, and covenants, to a penetrating calmness that sinks deep into our
hearts bearing witness that God knows each of us by name and has work for each
of us to do.

Timeless friendships are formed as we ask the hard
questions of life — and then discuss the answers as revealed through modern day
prophets: “Who am I?” “Why am I here?” “Why did this happen to me?” “How could
an all-loving, all-powerful God allow so much pain and anguish?” “Is there life
after death?”

The more time Mormons spend with each other, serving each
other, working with each other, recreating with each other — the closer we get
to that point where we may be referred to by the Lord as, “Zion, because [we are] of one heart and one mind.”

Unity is a powerful virtue to members of The Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We desire to be one with our God. We seek to
be one with our families and with our congregations. We work towards unity with
strangers or foreigners and even seek righteous unity with other faiths,
whether Christian, Jewish, Islamic, or otherwise.

But does a unity quantified more than anything else by a morality governing desires,
thoughts, words, and actions also dictate we should vote
uniformly for a singular political candidate based solely on religion?

No. And yet that appears to be exactly what Speaker Boehner’s
comment infers.

Perhaps in an attempt to allay fears among the GOP masses
that Romney is the right man for the job, Boehner downplayed Romney’s assets
and candidly spoke of the election as a referendum on Obama more than anything
else.

“Mitt Romney has some friends, relatives, and fellow
Mormons … some people that are going to vote for him. But … this election is
going to be a referendum on the president’s failed economic policies.”

There are many who agree with Boehner’s assessment,
though they may have been taken back somewhat by his candor. In fact, I agree
that the support of Romney’s friends, relatives, and fellow Mormons will not be
enough to propel him to Electoral College victory.

Where I disagree with Boehner is the implied assumption
that you must automatically vote for Romney if you are his friend, if you are
related to him, or if you are among his “fellow Mormons.”

The global faith that is The Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints is headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah. When Romney ran for
president in 2008, he received 90 percent of the primary vote in Utah. There was no
close second; Mormons flocked to the polls in droves to vote for Romney.

Yet it is these examples that can so easily lead to
stereotypes which degrade individual responsibility. If I were to vote for
Romney in November, I would not do so because each of us is white, male and
Mormon.

One of the attributes I look for in a political leader is
a man or woman of integrity and morality. When November arrives, if Romney’s
morals are more aligned with my own than those of Obama, I would probably vote
for Romney. My ballot would be a symbolic gesture indicating that morality is
an issue of concern to me. It would be an appropriate venue to speak
politically to what is typically a religious issue — and by religious, I speak
of traditional morals, not dogmatic creeds.

“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is
neutral in matters of party politics.” Yet while the leadership of the church
will not tell members what political party to join or which political candidate
to vote for, they do remind us we have a duty not only to our God and our
families, but also to our country.

Each election year, an ecclesiastical leader will read a
letter from church headquarters admonishing the congregation to the effect, “We
encourage the membership to study the issues and candidates carefully and
prayerfully and then vote for those they believe will act with integrity and
will most nearly carry out ideals of good government.”

By carefully weighing the issues, our votes become additional arrows in a bottomless quiver of choices for which we are responsible.

In other words, there are certain moral issues that
government seems to handle more and more as the years go on. These issues are
important to me. As one who has been bequeathed the right to vote, I will never
confuse that sacred right with a look-alike contest.

It is one thing to make the case for Romney’s presidency
to his friends, family, and fellow-Mormons; it is quite different, perhaps even
inappropriate, to assume Mormons will vote for Romney merely because they share
the same religious affiliation.

If Romney is elected, his victory should be preceded not
by the support of his segmented friends, family, and fellow-Mormons — but rather
by the confidence of his fellow-Americans.

Thursday, July 12, 2012

The following is a letter I submitted for publication to the editor of Bloomberg Businessweek. The letter addresses an article written about finances within The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, entitled, "How the Mormons Make Money," along with a related illustration placed on the cover of the magazine.

(A summary of my feelings on the matter and the catalyst for submitting the letter can be found here.)

* * * * *

I would like to submit the following for publication in
Bloomberg Businessweek as a Letter to the Editor. I am deeply offended and
would be appreciative if your publication could present my point of view in its
fullness. I would be happy to discuss the issue with you should you have any
questions.

Name: Kurt Manwaring

Address: Taylorsville, UT

Phone: xxx-xxx-xxxx

As a businessman and a Mormon, I would like to express my
displeasure with Caroline Winter’s article, “How the Mormons Make Money,” and
the associated illustration on the magazine’s cover.

Winter constantly makes use of claims that are
objectively inaccurate as well as claims which are misleading. I assume the
number of inaccuracies in the article is indicative of Winter’s ignorance of the
topic rather than a violation of journalistic ethics in which the author
knowingly creates and uses misrepresentations in order to strengthen the viability
of her overall assumptions. In either case, whether the author went to press
without receiving editing support or knowingly misrepresented numerous facts,
the article and the magazine’s cover are unworthy of any professional periodical,
let alone one with the prestige of Bloomberg Businessweek.

As a Mormon, the magazine’s cover and the author’s
feature filled me with regret there exist still a few media outlets that feel
it is acceptable to mock the religious beliefs of others. As a businessman, I
am both disappointed and surprised at the sheer number of inaccuracies in the
piece. Especially given the fact The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints provides the media with resource materials to ensure the accurate use of
facts (http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/),
it will be challenging to read future articles by Winter without questioning
the accuracy of her “facts.”

I think it is unfortunate an article and magazine cover could
fall so dramatically below the traditionally high standards of Bloomberg
Businessweek.

There are times when the worlds of business and religion intertwine in our interactions with the world. I emphasize the word "interactions" because I believe in embracing and exercising the same set of values in any setting, including work and church - and in my writings.

Media coverage of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (aka, the "Mormons") has ebbed and flowed from positive coverage to negative coverage, from one publisher to another, since the church was founded in 1830.

A new era of media coverage seems to have begun approximately ten years ago when the Olympics were hosted in Salt Lake City, Utah - the global headquarters for the church. Journalists from around the world published stories about the faith during their visits, prompting a revitalization in the media for coverage of Mormonism. Several years later a prominent member of the church, Mitt Romney, ran for president and was defeated in the primaries. His second attempt proved more fruitful as he now heads to the GOP national convention as the presumed nominee. These conspicuous events generated the near-ubiquitous phrase, "Mormon Moment," even though a more accurate phrase would refer to our faith's latest examination in the press.

Naturally, such heavy coverage has resulted in a few bad apples. The church makes every effort it can to help journalists properly understand our faith to ensure accuracy when their stories appear in print. The online Newsroom is billed as "the official resource for news media, opinion leaders, and the public." The website provides answers to frequently asked questions, common misconceptions, etc. It even provides journalists with contact information for official public affairs representatives to answer questions not found in the copy material, or to respond to specific questions. These resources enable journalists to portray the church's beliefs or positions accurately, regardless of whether the article is intended to portray the church in a positive or negative light.

Unfortunately, not all media outlets take advantage of these resources. As a result, inaccurate articles sometimes find their way onto the printed page or the online blog. Sometimes the inaccuracies are innocuous; sometimes they cause harm; sometimes they promote bigotry or hatred.

I have become accustomed to seeing all kinds of articles with inaccuracies that could have been easily prevented. But there are times when I wonder if the reporter or the media outlet really wants to portray the truth when the partial truth is so much more scandalous and sells so many more copies. Yet in a way, the motivation almost doesn't matter. An unfortunate reality of life is that we must learn to deal with being misrepresented by others. Sometimes those misrepresentations are intimately personal and can lead to heart-wrenching tears. Other times they hurt us indirectly, as when our faith is unjustly attacked or misrepresented.

A recent article and illustration in the prestigious Bloomberg Businessweek periodical manages to mock individual beliefs while seeming to utilize a combination of facts, partial facts, and for lack of a less cruel-sounding word, misrepresentations.

...And thou shalt build a shopping mall, own stock in Burger King, and open a Polynesian theme park in Hawaii that shall be largely exempt from the frustrations of tax..."

To which Joseph Smith is depicted in similar fashion, saying, "Hallelujah."

This evening, I sent a letter to the editor of Businessweek. This particular issue managed to mock my faith with its illustrations and cause me to wonder if Winter's other writings might also utilize so much selective use of fact, save it deal with a topic about which I am not as familiar, and therefore unable to recognize potential problems with her conclusions. I don't know whether Winter's article is merely an example of a feature that slipped through the cracks of fact-checking and editing, or if misrepresentations were made on purpose. The article's connection with the poor taste of the magazine's cover illustration leads me to certain conclusions, but I have not spoken with the writer and cannot make any claims regarding her motivations, research, or editing.

Nonetheless, I have written a letter to the editor. (I am always hesitant to send letters to editors for publication because so much liberty is often taken with my text. In one instance I was tempted to write a letter to the editor rebutting the arguments I made in my first letter, but which were modified by the editor so much that they represented the opposite of my original point).

I don't know if the letter will be accepted for publication or if it will be published in its unedited form, but I feel strongly enough about what I view as a stain on Bloomberg's reputation that I have included the text of my letter here.

Wednesday, July 4, 2012

GOP Presidential candidate Mitt Romney was asked recently if he would
refuse a salary if elected. Technically, there is no leniency in the
matter as the Constitution mandates the president receive compensation. A
more accurate and interesting question is whether a President Romney —
or any president — should donate his or her salary.

My first reaction to the question was that it would be unhealthy for presidents to donate their wages. In my mind, it could set a precedent leading to a scenario where only the wealthy could run for the office. While this is already something of a de facto reality, it is nonetheless enjoyable to believe in the idealism of the "American dream," to know that an individual does not necessarily need to be wealthy to be elected president.

I thought through the question posed to Romney and contacted Calvin Harper, a friend of mine who has a passion for constitutional history. I wanted to see if he could track down sources from the Founding Fathers to validate my initial thoughts that could be used in an Op-Ed.

He gladly accepted the invitation and responded like a giddy school-boy after reading the minutes of the First Congress — an experience he said was exhilarating.

His findings surprised me. I was reminded how important it is to view history through the lens of the time period being examined and not the time period in which the examination takes place — or in the words of David McCullough, there is "no such thing as the past."

It turns out the Founders wanted a presidential salary put into place so the best individual would be attracted to the position, not merely those who were wealthy enough to serve as president without pay.

But that was only a secondary concern. A careful study revealed that the primary motivation for a presidential salary was to protect the chief executive from the lures of bribery.

In this Op-Ed for the Salt Lake Tribune, Calvin and I address the question of whether Romney should donate his salary if he wins in November, and, if so, how.

We briefly trace the origins of the salary and present a giving strategy that would enable presidents to donate their wages without (1) creating a precedent harmful to lower net-worth presidents, (2) using the "donation" for overt political gain, and (3) widening the nation's increasingly large partisan divide.

If elected, Romney need not give away his presidential salary. However,
should he choose to do so, he would be well-advised to utilize a giving
strategy designed to unite Republicans and Democrats alike under a
banner of nonpartisan giving.